To nominate a user (including yourself), add their username to the appropriate section below. Please explain why you feel the nominated user would be a good choice. All registered Wikibookians may comment, and provide arguments in support or opposition. For the bot flag, technical information about the bot may be requested. See the specific requirements for each type of access on their respective pages.

Outcome

Consensus does not need to be demonstrated in granting reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those. All other tools require community consensus and can only be granted by bureaucrats. Access to CheckUser is governed by CheckUser policy. After about one week, if there is consensus to grant access, then a bureaucrat will make it so and record the fact here. If not, a bureaucrat may refuse to grant the rights and the request will remain until a consensus is reached.

My bot is global bot that has done interwiki migration to Wikidata in numerous wikis, Since in February 24th Wikibooks will also join Wikidata, interwikis are not needed anymore. Ladsgroup (discuss • contribs) 07:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you describe the function of the bot please? For example, is it intended to migrate interwikis to Wikidata, to remove interwikis only, or something else? In addition, as far as I'm aware the exact structure of the Wikidata / Wikibooks relationship isn't fully defined yet. For example, it isn't agreed if there will be one association at the book main page level, or one association for every page within the book. Given this, if your bot is migrating interwikis to Wikidata, I don't think you can be ready to use it yet as the configuration requirements aren't finalised. Finally, I'd like to see some test edits without the bot flag to check it is working as expected. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The bot does both of them. I skip pages in the main namespace when there is "/" character in their title or if there is an interwiki conflict. About test edits, I can do test edits when the system is ready in February 24th but this task is trivial and has done successfully in Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikisource already Ladsgroup (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Even so, I'd like to see a test, but not too many edits, not least because none of the projects you mention has FlaggedRevisions enabled and the last thing I want is every page getting flagged for manual review in error. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My experience on Wikinews leaves me highly skeptical about the claim that "interwikis are not needed anymore". Wikidata centralization of such things does harm to sister projects in several ways. (Wikidatans are mostly friendly people in my experience, but this makes no difference to these consequences of centralization.) The centralization maximizes the damage that can be done to sister projects from a centralized location, while minimizing the ability of local projects to customize, change, or even maintain control of, how their own interwikis are handled, and while also minimizing local projects' ability to know when damage has been done (whether by malicious intent, benign intent, or accident). Unfortunately, because Wikidata was implemented instead of some better alternative, this damage to the overall infrastructure of the sisterhood is probably something we'll have to live with permanently, but it doesn't follow that we should dismantle our local interwiki infrastructure, which is inherently both more flexible and more robust against all forms of centralized damage.

The claim about success on Wikinews is doubtful. Dexbot made a bunch of edits on en.wn in August, apparently contrary to local policy which requires first getting clearance from the local community before running a bot, and (somehow or other) it made those edits with the bot flag despite having never been granted the bot flag by the local community. When the edits were noticed in October, the bot was blocked and a notification placed on the bot's user talk page that the local community would have to be applied to for permission to run the bot, and all the (300+) edits were de-sighted so they could be manually reviewed. Since then, no application has been made on en.wn for permission to run the bot. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What you said here is slightly unrelated to my intention and this RfBA. In Wikis with 1-to-1 logic (like Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, etc.) centralization is super useful but in other wikis still traditional interwikis must be in use but that doesn't mean you can't centralize the interwiki at all. Categories and templates are good examples. Job of the bot is to do the obvious but repetitive tasks and leave complicated ones to humans and you can see it. About the incident in English Wikinews, interwiki fixation is not a complicated task, bots get global flag about them and it's easy to run, error is low and even if it happens and you see an error, contact the bot operator and they fix it for you. My bot was removing interwiki links from *templates* in English Wikinews so it made zero harm to that wiki (exactly zero) and I used common senseLadsgroup (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect, some of the liabilities of centralization arise even for Wikipedias; a close look at the list of disadvantages I gave above shows that some of them clearly apply to Wikipedias as well as to less Wikipedia-like projects. Yes there are advantages of centralization over the status quo ante (although this was my point about implementing Wikidata instead of something better; a better, more robust solution without lessening local control could have been devised and implemented, but wasn't, and now that Wikidata exists there's a good chance no better solution will ever be implemented).

It's worth noting that the more idiosyncratic a sister project is, the more problematic will be dependence on Wikidata for interwikis. Wikibooks is, in effect, a confederation of thousands of microprojects (books), each of which has its own peculiarities, which tends to maximize the sort of idiosyncracies that make use of Wikidata problematic.

I would agree that the Wikinews incident is only weakly related, though my main point was that Wikinews was being misleadingly cited as a "success". I do think it inaccurate to claim that no damage could be done because the edits were to templates. It's been long enough that I no longer remember for sure whether there were things that needed correcting before manually sighting the edits made by the bot. I do note that the use of global bots on en.wn is essentially a way of hiding violations of local policy, which is the sort of casual dissing of local control that leads to incautious centralization. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry , but I do not understand what you mean by 'interwiki links'. Are you trying to say that this bot will convert our links in such a way that they will be centralized so that any project can use the links? Can you show us a demo(for I am not sure of the benefits)?--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the way we refer to something(by linking)on another wiki , like w:item. However , is Wikidata meant to extend this to languages like fr:Item for the French Wikibooks? How would it be for the French Wikipedia then?--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When you put wiki markup [[:fr:foobar]] on a page, that creates a link to page "foobar" on the French Wikibooks. However, if you put [[fr:foobar]] on the page, that doesn't create a link in the page content at all. Instead, it creates an interwiki on the navigation bar at the left side of the page (assuming you aren't using the mobile interface): under "languages" on the left-hand nav bar, "French" is listed with a link there to page "foobar" on French Wikibooks.

Here's where Wikidata comes into it. There may be an item on Wikidata that links to a page here, and also links to page "foobar" on French Wikibooks. The fact that both pages are linked from the same Wikidata item causes each of them to have an interwiki to the other, on the left-hand nav bar — except that if there is a local specification of an interwiki, such as [[fr:foobar]], that overrides anything on Wikidata. However, the local specification only causes our page to have an interwiki to the page on French Wikibooks; it does not cause the page on French Wikibooks to automatically link back to our page. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm... This bot isn't even approved and you just ran your bot. Don't think this bot was accepted/given the ok to do some edits at least... --atcovi (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot because it is doing exactly what I warned against earlier in this thread. As the bot is not flagged, every edit it makes results in a new unflagged revision being created requiring manual review. We have enough trouble with getting people to review revisions here as it is without a bot creating hundreds more. The bot will remain blocked until it is approved for the flag - which causes its revisions to not require manual review. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't need the reviewer bit to contribute. Eventually, once you have breadth of experience contributing to the project, you get automatically promoted to reviewer. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

At the rate you're editing you'll be auto-promoted in the next few weeks anyway. I would have no problems making such a change now if other editors voiced their support.--ЗAНИAtalk 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Looks good. They have a number of quality edits here and crosswiki. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm fine with this either. I've reviewed many of his edits , and they are all contributive.--Leaderboard 12:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Myself, I'm inclined to give things time to develop, which includes giving a new user time to acclimate. So if I were just making a snap call, on my own, I'd wait. But as long as the user doesn't go bananas with the reviewer bit the moment they get it, in this case they'll likely acclimate just as well over the next few weeks with the bit as without it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that valid and proper requests for promotion to reviewer or similar levels shouldn't take long(more than a few days).--Leaderboard 17:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I said "wait", in this context I meant "let autopromotion take its course". --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes , I understand , but autopromote often takes its own time on that. If a user has a valid request for having that right quicker than normal , then that should be immediately granted.--Leaderboard 19:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Which begs the question of what is a "valid request". So that shortcut leads us back to where we started, or so it seems to me. I don't see a burden here, if one simply waits patiently for autompromotion. It's a given that if they wait for autopromote, then when they get promoted they'll have had more experience with Wikibooks to acclimate them than they have had now. Is the criterion for a "valid" request that it wouldn't bring about the apocalypse, or is it whether there's a benefit to justify bypassing the usual autopromotion process? Or is it some other criterion? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be right for new users , but he's experienced on other projects(yes , I know that the rules are different , but he should've some idea about reviewing).
The criterion should be that if the request is valid and makes sense to approve of , it should be immediately approved. Of course , if it's clear that he is a completely new user or has too few edits to justify his edits , then it should be denied or delayed.
For an example of how this affects the ability of the user to contribute as quickly and effectively , have a look at Eurodyne's request for reviewer.--Leaderboard 17:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The first bit strikes me as circular. If the request should be approved then it should be approved.

More substantively, you're saying if somebody has experience at another wikimedian project, that should reduce the effective acclimation requirements here. But every project is different, and one of the difficulties we have on smaller projects is users from other projects (typically from Wikipedia, the biggest sister) coming here and doing things that aren't Wikibooks-appropriate because they follow the habits they've developed elsehwere. So although experience with another project gives them a head start on wikis and wikimedia generally, it might leave them with more to unlearn. A difference perhaps in what acclimation is needed, but not necessarily in how nuch acclimation is needed.

In a particular case there may be a particular reason for wanting the bit. Eurodyne had a specific kind of edits to do, with a particular reason for wanting the bit for those kinds of edits. Not a parallel case. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

We don't usually use this group right, but I can't see a problem with granting it, so done. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am sysop and bureaucrat at de:Wikibooks. My bot mainly works locally at de-WB to simplify admin's works. While checking links from other WMF projects to de-WB, I found a lot of not existing links, e.g.:

If I'ld clear these "links to Nirvana" manually, I'ld spend much more time. Your reviewers can check my edits by spot checks and find out that everything's alright, don't they? It's a unique work. If it's finished only single changes will follow in cases of deleting a German wikibook or other page.

I don't want to cause additional work for you. I only wanted to test the bot with a couple of pages and was surprised that so many false links exist. Otherwise I should have done the other way round: first announcing the bot, then working.

Under these circumstances, I beg to unblock my bot and set the autoreview flag. I don't want the bot flag according to your rule:

A bot which only edits occasionally and does not flood the RC feed does not need the bot flag, and its actions should be openly visible to RC patrollers like all other actions.

You seem to want to edit here but not have a talk page here. That seems strange and not really acceptable - can you explain why? QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm rarely active at en-WB. Therefore I was linking to my talk page at de-WB − the same way many users do at de-WB. My bot only wants to do the edits described above (links fixing resp. removing). -- Juetho (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we don't normally use the Autoreview group (it has no members) but I don't see a problem with granting it, so marking this as done. Please watch your bot's talk page if you aren't going to watch your own. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Done. Please ensure you only upload images you will use (unused images have to be deleted) and you apply the correct fair use template, completed correctly, each time. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to upload fair-use qualified screenshots of some software to improve this wikibook VSphere_Web_Client. The images are subportions of screenshots of the software, with some additional highlights added, and used for demonstrating the tips that the wikibook has listed. There's no other way to achieve the same effect without uploading the screens to en.wikibooks local, as Wikimedia commons will not accept the fair-use images. Dennisblu (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Done. Please consider the significant number of neutral comments and apply the advice given. There are a couple of minor concerns I have. For example the removal of the {{query}} tag from Essentials of Minerals when it is clearly not a book (out of scope for Wikibooks) and is also a partial copyright violation having been copied various sources including here. You need to spend time familiarising yourself with some of the content and other policies here and ask for advice if unsure. Congratulations and good luck. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's time we need a new administrator to help out with Maintenance here. I'm presenting myself to request Administrator permissions here on Wikibooks. The reason why I feel it's necessary for me to request this right is since we need one to hide revisions, delete pages, block vandals, and work on other maintenance. I have over 1,500 edits on this project, and projects I am most proud of my work is: Wikijunior:Asia (new project), Wikijunior:Africa (Edits throughout existing pages, planning on creating new pages), Wikijunior:Extinct Birds (project I created), and many others at my userpage listed under "Best Contributions". My plans for administrator is to hide some gross vandalism, I've emailed an admin to hide the revision, rather than having to send an email and waite for it to be hidden hours later, I can do the job myself as a sysop. I'm also looking forward to working on Category:Files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons <-- 38 files in there I'd like to clean up/delete. As well I have closed 3 Requests for Deletions, helped at Wikibooks:Reading room and most of the pages there. I'd like to help with blocking repeating vandals, and spammers who pop up from time to time. I usually check Wikibooks daily, and spot pages that are awaiting to be deletion. I usually ping an admin to review these pages set up for deletion, but with the sysop bit, I can simply do the job myself without having to ping admins on IRC to do it (or email). If they're are any questions you'd like to ask me, feel free to do so. Thank you. --atcovi (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Showing a promise, on benefit of the doubt, most mistake happens years ago was due to childishness of Atcovi, often being rash, but today I see significant improvement on him, look right now he admit his own mistake politely unlike two years ago, and he did a lot of good job on many things including his contributions globally, I would like to see his contributions as Administrator in the future.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 03:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. Atcovi has been growing in many ways. We learn and we grow and can grow into a job. Key is his ability to learn from and correct his mistakes, which I have been watching for many years. He has developed and demonstrated an ability to listen to and respond positively to criticism, and that is crucial in an administrator. Raw skill can be developed. It's a wiki, mistakes can be fixed. Raw character is not so easy to find. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

NeutralSupport Considering the work you've done , I am inclined towards giving support to you(I've seen your edits , especially those with reviewing , and I find them good.). But , before I give full support to you , I'd like to know as to what you would use the tools if you're granted with them(describe it more clearly). Also , most of the supporters appear to be Wikiversity contributors instead , which may raise a concern for some. However , I commend the fact that someone finally stood up to this however , whether you succeed or not.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Leaderboard, I’d be more than happy to further explain what I’d do with the tools. What I’m mostly going to do is help out with the recent waves of spam. Usually once I tag a page for spam, it takes a while for it to be deleted, unless I ping an admin on IRC to review and delete the page. As well as with spam deletions, I’d like to work on some of the edit filters to prevent some spam coming in as well, just to decrease the number of spam on Wikiversity. Another topic to come to is vandalism. For some, maybe there isn’t much for the vandalism on Wikibooks. But when they’re is a big vandal out there vandalizing pages constantly, such as https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.154.150.225 this ip for example, who kept vandalizing pages about the featured cookbook, Au Jus Sandwich. The IP was blocked for vandalism for 3 days 2 hours later, which shows the lack with sysops reviewing recent changes. We even have global sysops like RuyP stepping in to blocks some vandals, that shows that there is a need for one person to step up to the job to help out with the administrative tasks. Last one would be some editing/creating new filters (this task may not be done on my list fast tho) to, as I said above, decrease the spam on Wikibooks. I understand their could be flaws I’ve done, but we all make mistakes, and the most important part (to me) is that we learn from the mistakes, and not do it again. Thank you, and feel free to ask me any questions if you’re questions have not been answered.

Neutral While I do agree with Atcovi's premise, that more active administrators would be useful, I'm unsure of Atcovi's abilities. Granted, my own area of expertise is almost entirely one project, the Muggles' Guide, but twice now, within that one project, Atcovi has approved deltas, one which was egregious vandalism, one more recently which was misspelled and ungrammatical. I'd be happier about supporting this candidacy if my own experience suggested that he was going to handle it reasonably competently. Chazz(talk) 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for that incident, I honestly didn't know and just to keep that from being an unreviewed edit I reviewed it. Didn't this issue happen months ago? --atcovi (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The incident with randoms replacing character names with their own and also inserting their own names did happen, yes, almost a year ago. The incident with an ungrammatical and misspelled question being added, which you approved, was maybe a week and a half ago. Chazz(talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

While I do accept your apology, I am afraid that I see this as somewhat systemic. Perhaps you are in too much of a hurry, and approve things that look to be all right with only a cursory check. But while speed can be good, too much speed may lead to this sort of carelessness... and particularly as it is response time that you're on about, that is what worries me here. Chazz(talk) 22:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand Chazz, I'll be taking your advice if I get the permissions or not. Thank you for giving me advice, it's gladly appreciated. --atcovi (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Per some of the concerns mentioned previously. While I'm glad to hear that you are mainly interested in combatting spam, I'm curious as to how familiar you are with regular expressions. It's used extensively with the abuse filter extension and one wrong entry or modification there... could potentially disable editing for a large amount of users. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No , everyone has his/her first times. A mistake or 2 by any admin should be reasonably accepted. Is there any testing area for this anyway? --Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Although there are some kinds of mistakes that you hope don't happen and if they do you mitigate as best you can and try to do better in future —I'd hate to have us turn into something like en.wp has seemingly become, where to pass RFA a candidate has to already know everything that could possibly be known about adminship— the bigger the potential consequences of a mistake, the more important that the mistake not be made even once. One does want someone who will take the tasks involved seriously in proportion to their impact. I'd much like to know what Atcovi has to say about their knowledge of (so-called) regexes. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Az1568, in response to my regex expression experience for the abuse filter, honestly I won't be going into that unless the Spam rises, it seems a bit high (toward my standards) atm, but if it rises it could get me to toggle around them. Now, experience? I have edited edit filters at two Test Wikis, as well as read other edit filters. I understand the damage an edit filter can do, and as well why I won't be going into edit filters a lot. Plus, I might email another sysop just to make sure I don't mess up accidentally, better be safe then sorry! I honestly don't even think edit filters might come to my to do list if I pass sysop tbh, there is no big need. Tho, I'd like to add an edit filter to block out words such as "pussy", "vagina", "penis", and some sex acts. If they use that for educational purposes, and not for vandalism, I'll be more than happy to allow it to go by. But overall, I'm pretty familiar with regex, knowing I have edited and seen edit filters on the two test wikis I usually contribute at. Thanks. --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, the three words you mentioned — "pussy", "vagina", and "penis" — are all, out of context, things that could perfectly legitimately arise in ordinary contribution to Wikibooks. Edit filtering is tricky. I recall some problems we had on en.wn a while back with an edit filter that objected to edits that reduced the page size by more than a certain amount and also resulted in something containing "poo"; we disabled it because it was preventing us from making certain kinds of space-saving custodial edits to any article that had to do with the city of Liverpool. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment . With my 'crat hat on, I am intending to close this (unless someone else does) no later than 13 March. While it's been open for a while, we've not had many comments and historically RFAs have seen in the order of six or more supports. However, this can't stay open forever hence why I'm setting the time limit at 13 March. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm neutral on this discussion, but I'm also confused and a little bit worried. Considering the posts of support, that are mostly unnecessary on this proceeding (even if usual at times from known active Wikibookians), are rarely participated by newcomers to the decision processes. They however demonstrate that you can gather support for your initiatives, this allied with your young age (and the age I also perceive on some of the above posts) preoccupies me when and if you make a mistake or are strongly opposed on your actions. Together to what you have said, that people around your age group are not often well intentioned, gets me a bit worried. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Panic, could you explain clearly why my young, unusual age has to do with this? Yes, most kids around my age don't know how to handle tools, but it's not all about the age. It doesn't matter what the age is if the person shows maturity and competence. Thanks. --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 15:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly at times age and its constrain to maturity, life experience and mental stability has implications. More or less from the age you are approaching, one also has to deal with a changing hormonal levels and drastic mind and body transformations, all this simple biological facts, that are even gender distinct, are all good arguments to prevent granting a large social stage and responsibility to the young individual. Not that I agree with some of society's excessive and arbitrary age limitations but I recognize that they are significative to protect not only the impacted individuals but those around them.

In any case I'm not blocking your request, to me it should be as easy to grant you the rights as to remove them. I'm just concerned for the potential for future disruption, but recognize that it is not a good enough argumentation to prevent you to take on the extra functions. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) ,

I disagree with you , Panic. As Atcovi said , age should not be much of a barrier unless it can be proved that he is too young to handle the duties , which I believe that it is not. It depends on his level of understanding. Is any Wikibooks(or WIkimedia) rule requring sysops to be of a particular minimum age? Additionally , isn't there a probabion period of some sort?--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment For my own and others' perspective, I've looked up my own sysop discussion. It was closed with eight in favor, none opposed: Kayau (the nominator), Panic, Jomegat, Adrignola, Thenub314, Mike.lifeguard, QuiteUnusual, and Chazz. Six of these are still at least somewhat active (all but Adrignola and Mike.lifeguard). It seems to me these six are still (five years later) a large part of the central overall-project cell of en.wb. Several were not and are not admins, but several were and are. Additional admins are Darklama, User:Az1568, Xania, and Recent Runes. Well, and myself. Of the eleven actives I've just named, two have declared their neutrality here and none of the others have taken a stance. I'm preparing to take one, myself. But I'm also wondering if we should be publicizing this discussion somehow; sitenotice, perhaps? (I've linked the actives I've mentioned who haven't participated here yet.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not common practice to make admin. requests into general broadcasts (to my recall it only happened in bureaucrat discussions due to the required number of express support votes) and in my view it can become more harmful than good to nudge the general population to participate at this point without the presence of a good argumentation regarding the request that could rally people behind. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Now this is so misleading, I am not Wikiversity contributor, in fact I only have 24 edits there on Wikiversity, and I have 224 edits here on Wikibooks and also a Reviewer, I expand Indonesian books here and only do anti Vandalism work at Wikiversity as part of my m:Global Sysops role. So please don't made weird accusation @Leaderboard:@Panic2k4:, in fact why don't all of you review my own contribution globally? Special:CentralAuth/Aldnonymous Really! You can! :D . Thanks for the input! --AldNonUcallin?☎ 05:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Aldnonymous , I apologize for the accusation. Atcovi is a Wikiversity admin , and Abd is a long time contributor , so I did not check the full facts and simply concluded incorrectly that the supporters were Wikiversity contributors. Not that I was specifically pointing at you. Thanks.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment : I would disagree with your idea however. It does not matter how old you actually are , if the user can demonstrate their competence , then it shouldn't matter.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm not, and I don't think I'll ever become a Wikiversity sysop in the next upcoming months. --atcovi (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)